resize_canvas

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the key behavior that layer pixels are not scaled, but omits other important behaviors such as how offsets affect positioning, what happens to layers extending beyond new bounds, or any side effects. This is partial transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose and key behavior. It contains no filler and is easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 5 parameters, 3 required, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is insufficient for full understanding. It lacks information about offset handling, edge cases (e.g., negative values, smaller canvas clipping), and the effect on existing layers beyond the note on scaling. The presence of an output schema does not reduce the need for behavioral context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details. While names like width, height, and offset_x are somewhat self-explanatory, their exact semantics—especially offset behavior and units—are not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (resize the canvas) and the resource (canvas), while the phrase 'without scaling layer pixels' distinguishes it from similar tools like resize_image. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you want to change canvas dimensions while preserving layer pixel scale, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it. Sibling tools like resize_image and crop_image exist, but no direct comparison is made.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.